No, that's still what white supremacist means. I'm not diluting the term, I'm applying it to people that really hold that view, including Trump and a large part of the Republican party. If you want to unpack statements like "immigrants should come from Norway", start a thread, it would be a big tangent here. For the purpose of this thread, I will treat unabashed white supremacism as a mainstream view.

So if we took the members of some random KKK chapter and replaced half of the Trump administration with them, you wouldn't expect to see any difference?

I don't agree you accomplished either of those things, but the point here is you put a hell of a lot of effort into the attempt, as opposed to the "boo" comment, where you only acknowledge a highly negative interpretation when others are available.

I don't understand why you think it's meaningful to contrast these things. The Damore memo was a document that made a variety of factual claims, some of which were being misrepresented. It was interesting to correct that misrepresentation and examine those claims. This is a social media post booing or cheering based on the race/gender of candidates up for promotion. There doesn't seem to be anything to examine here.

When the law says it's illegal to discriminate against someone for being a member of protected class, and includes race and gender as protected classes, it does not mean "except white people and men." The category "white man" is just as protected as, say, the category "black woman." If you e.g. refuse to hire someone for being a member of either category, these are identical acts in the eyes of the law.

Why do we have protected class laws at all?

The answer to that question is why your assertion that the law protects white men too is pointless.

ZnU is correct. That is literally the law of the land: McDonald v Santa Fe, 1976 established that Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act protects white people from discrimination on the basis of race.

I don't think that Damore will be able to establish that Google discriminates against white people, but if they are doing that, they are literally breaking the law, same as if they discriminate against asians, latinos, women, etc.

Again, that is the actual law that courts and judges operate from, as distinct from tumblr posts and Google internal message boards. You can't discriminate against people based on their race, whether they are white, black, whatever. Yes, white people tend to need this protection less than others.

In that case, I'm not sure there's a non-contested answer to the question. That is, I suspect intersectionalists and universalists (to use the terms the 'Identitarianism and Universalism' thread evolved toward) understand the moral justification for anti-discrimination laws quite differently.

In that case, I'm not sure there's a non-contested answer to the question. That is, I suspect intersectionalists and universalists (to use the terms the 'Identitarianism and Universalism' thread evolved toward) understand the moral justification for anti-discrimination laws quite differently.

Using the protected class provisions for white men to stop affirmative action or penalizing any form of giving benefit to minorities for applications is basically making the goal of an equal society extremely difficult if not outright impossible. Thus using the law in this way violates it's moral intent imho.

There is a difference between legalized set up Affirmative Action laws and programs and people just deciding to not hire white people because they think it's fair to get back at them.

Basically the difference between having the police arrest somebody for murdering somebody and then taking them to a trial, and vigilante justice where you just have a bunch of angry people shoot the person they think is responsible.

These statutes cannot be narrowly confined to partisan activity. As explained in Mallard v. Boring (1960) 182 Cal. App. 2d 390, 395 [6 Cal. Rptr. 171]: "The term `political activity' connotes the espousal of a candidate or a cause, and some degree of action to promote the acceptance thereof by other persons."

There is a difference between legalized set up Affirmative Action laws and programs and people just deciding to not hire white people because they think it's fair to get back at them.

Basically the difference between having the police arrest somebody for murdering somebody and then taking them to a trial, and vigilante justice where you just have a bunch of angry people shoot the person they think is responsible.

But that’s not what happened, nor has anyone suggested it. It’s a straw man.

These statutes cannot be narrowly confined to partisan activity. As explained in Mallard v. Boring (1960) 182 Cal. App. 2d 390, 395 [6 Cal. Rptr. 171]: "The term `political activity' connotes the espousal of a candidate or a cause, and some degree of action to promote the acceptance thereof by other persons."

Political activity or affiliation does not cover junk science used to perpetuate gender stereotypes.

Instead you have a person that engages in grossly unprofessional behaviour (the so called "feedback" which when it doesn't go anywhere via proper channels, is shown widely to co-workers

His claim was that the person running the training *asked* him to post his issues on a company feed back area specifically set up for feedback. That's about as proper channels as you can get.

My understanding was that he first directly reached for the diversity/HR people with his BS and got neither a response nor a reprimand (thus invalidating any claim as to discrimination against his views), at which point he proceeded to share with co-workers materials in a way which constitutes a hostile workplace for some of his co-workers. Which actually didn't get him fired until it additionally resulted in a shitstorm outside the company. A request for discussion does not constitute a blanket permission to engage in unprofessional behaviour, especially one that interferes with company's normal function.

edit: I think you feel that because you agree with at least some of the points of his manifesto (or at least can conceive of a hypothetical world where it could be true), it is acceptable. Well, suppose you wouldn't agree. Suppose he posted something about the innate superiority of Aryans over Jews. Or something else that you don't agree with. For example the company was asking on the feedback about the expo, and someone complimented the "boobs of the booth babe", got fired, and proceeded to claim discrimination against heterosexuals.

That wouldn't change the substance of his claim in any way, but would make it clearer to you that a request of feedback doesn't constitute a blanket permission to make any feedback you want, especially if said "feedback" is not going strictly upwards. There are still the same implicit standards of behaviour that you can be fired for violating*, irrespective of whether the company asked for feedback or not.

* or explicit ones, companies tend to have mandatory training videos covering a bunch of scenarios.

edit: ultimately I don't see how "but they asked for feedback" can make it a discrimination case in any way other than women rejected at Google interviews suing Google for not having appropriate practices and requesting that misogyny-promoting material ius shared within the workplace.

I think you feel that because you agree with at least some of the points of his manifesto (or at least can conceive of a hypothetical world where it could be true), it is acceptable. Well, suppose you wouldn't agree. Suppose he posted something about the innate superiority of Aryans over Jews. Or something else that you don't agree with. For example the company was asking on the feedback about the expo, and someone complimented the "boobs of the booth babe", got fired, and proceeded to claim discrimination against heterosexuals.

No, in fact I don't really care about if his claims are true or not when it comes to this case. Honestly, from everything that I've seen his claims are pretty much bad science, and taking minor deviations in testing and thinking that it should have a major effect on end results.

I'm pretty sure he'll lose his case, even in California, and honestly I think he has almost no chance of winning.

Add on: Keep in mind that the timeline doesn't fit that he was fired because management had any problem with the content of his postings. They saw both, presumably have some sort of basic forum controls like we have here at Ars, and decided to neither punish him, talk to him about them, or remove the posts.

Obviously we'll find out more as things case goes forward, and considering we only have his side of the story and things don't look good for him, and he's already at the begging for people to pay for the case, stage I don't imagine this will go forward. That said Conservatives do love anything that lets them claim they are being persecuted so he may find the $100,000 in donations he's asking for.

I think you feel that because you agree with at least some of the points of his manifesto (or at least can conceive of a hypothetical world where it could be true), it is acceptable. Well, suppose you wouldn't agree. Suppose he posted something about the innate superiority of Aryans over Jews. Or something else that you don't agree with. For example the company was asking on the feedback about the expo, and someone complimented the "boobs of the booth babe", got fired, and proceeded to claim discrimination against heterosexuals.

No, in fact I don't really care about if his claims are true or not when it comes to this case. Honestly, from everything that I've seen his claims are pretty much bad science, and taking minor deviations in testing and thinking that it should have a major effect on end results.

I'm pretty sure he'll lose his case, even in California, and honestly I think he has almost no chance of winning.

Well I additionally believe that there's no merit here. You can't just have a history of not being discriminated against, then try to push for something rather discriminatory against other co-workers, get fired, and then argue that you got fired due to discrimination.

If he can show that Google encouraged him to try to persuade other people that women are less capable programmers, that can only be relevant to women suing Google for discrimination.

edit: got ninja'd,

Quote:

Add on: Keep in mind that the timeline doesn't fit that he was fired because management had any problem with the content of his postings. They saw both, presumably have some sort of basic forum controls like we have here at Ars, and decided to neither punish him, talk to him about them, or remove the posts.

Precisely. I was under the impression also that first they got to see his views through one channel (appropriately) and then after being met with indifference he proceeded to push his text sideways through another.

Quote:

Obviously we'll find out more as things case goes forward, and considering we only have his side of the story and things don't look good for him, and he's already at the begging for people to pay for the case, stage I don't imagine this will go forward. That said Conservatives do love anything that lets them claim they are being persecuted so he may find the $100,000 in donations he's asking for.

Yeah I think it's a fair assessment. The thing is, he lost a job, and as far as I can tell he failed to gain an alt-job in the alt-right with his first stint. And probably never will, the folks that do succeed on the alt-right are for the most part highly unscrupulous people that probably don't share any of the alt-right beliefs but do have the necessary people skills. They certainly don't strike me as people who are going to let any beliefs impede their careers.

Yeah I think it's a fair assessment. The thing is, he lost a job, and as far as I can tell he failed to gain an alt-job in the alt-right with his first stint. And probably never will, the folks that do succeed on the alt-right are for the most part highly unscrupulous people that don't share any of the alt-right beliefs but do have the necessary people skills.

He does appear to be a true believer, which is not what they want because of how often they have to completely switch gears and argue for things that 10 seconds ago they said they were willing to fight to the death on.

Yeah I think it's a fair assessment. The thing is, he lost a job, and as far as I can tell he failed to gain an alt-job in the alt-right with his first stint. And probably never will, the folks that do succeed on the alt-right are for the most part highly unscrupulous people that don't share any of the alt-right beliefs but do have the necessary people skills.

He does appear to be a true believer, which is not what they want because of how often they have to completely switch gears and argue for things that 10 seconds ago they said they were willing to fight to the death on.

Yeah, it's fine for them to interview him about Google, but when it comes to continued alt-right participation that'd be all about falling in line, which is not going to happen by sheer coincidence of views. Also, tech salaries are huge, and it is very hard to make a comparable salary without years of expertise (which for some PR nonsense would be people skills).

edit2: Also, what he did transcends a specific political orientation, here's how: Suppose you employ him as a system admin at some alt-right website. Sounds like a good idea, right? Wrong, who's to say that he won't get annoyed with something (e.g. if he finds a woman there that works in the alt-right creative side of things and receives a bigger salary than his, and his career track doesn't even lead anywhere), and you get a similar PR shitstorm along the lines that the site isn't alt-right enough. There's a number of ways in which actually long term employing him is a PR shitstorm risk even if your position on a single issue nominally agrees with his.

No, in fact I don't really care about if his claims are true or not when it comes to this case. Honestly, from everything that I've seen his claims are pretty much bad science, and taking minor deviations in testing and thinking that it should have a major effect on end results.

For the sake of providing some scale, the male/female difference in self-reported physical aggression is d = 0.59 ("medium").

So, not exactly "minor deviations."

(Unfortunately the first link no longer works because Sci-Hub has been hounded off the Internet. It's Lippa's "Gender Differences in Personality and Interests: When, Where, and Why?" Here's an abstract.)

No, in fact I don't really care about if his claims are true or not when it comes to this case. Honestly, from everything that I've seen his claims are pretty much bad science, and taking minor deviations in testing and thinking that it should have a major effect on end results.

For the sake of providing some scale, the male/female difference in self-reported physical aggression is d = 0.59 ("medium").

So, not exactly "minor deviations."

(Unfortunately the first link no longer works because Sci-Hub has been hounded off the Internet. It's Lippa's "Gender Differences in Personality and Interests: When, Where, and Why?" Here's an abstract.)

Didn't he reference the IQ Variation Between Women and Men. IE: The claim that men have a larger variance, so you get more men who are at the sub 80 scale, but you also get more men at the 120+ scale. I would be incredibly surprised if he didn't reference it, because it's pretty much the Go-To on this topic for all Alt-Right arguements and any non-alt-right coverage of the study brings up large questions as to not only it's accuracy, but how big of a deal it's made of the variations.

I work with people afflicted with this and they really don't have any concept of an inner monologue. His disability should be justification for any litigation against Google. I hope he sues them into into the ground.

In that case, I'm not sure there's a non-contested answer to the question. That is, I suspect intersectionalists and universalists (to use the terms the 'Identitarianism and Universalism' thread evolved toward) understand the moral justification for anti-discrimination laws quite differently.

It's questionable whether 'universalists' understand why these laws were passed at all. Discrimination in America was historically targeted at non-whites and women. Had it been a social phenomenon that pretty much hit everybody at random, it would have been just as easy for black men and Muslim women to deal with as it has always been for white, Christian men -- in other words, not a problem at all and laws against it wouldn't ever have been created. Anti-discrimination laws were passed to address the adverse discriminatory conditions that non-favored minority groups and women faced in the workplace, and that they STILL face in many workplaces.

To ignore this when looking at the meaning and intent of the law can only arise from ill will or ignorance of history.

Unabashed white supremacism has been the default for the United States since before it became an official country. We're talking about a country whose founding document includes the phrase "We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal", written by white people who regarded non-white people as fucking livestock. White supremacy has informed our laws and cultural norms for centuries. If you only consider people running around with hoods or swastikas "white supremacists", you're turning a blind eye to how white supremacy is embedded into the very foundations of our society. And by doing do, you are actively helping to perpetuate white supremacy.

Unabashed white supremacism has been the default for the United States since before it became an official country. We're talking about a country whose founding document includes the phrase "We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal", written by white people who regarded non-white people as fucking livestock. White supremacy has informed our laws and cultural norms for centuries. If you only consider people running around with hoods or swastikas "white supremacists", you're turning a blind eye to how white supremacy is embedded into the very foundations of our society. And by doing do, you are actively helping to perpetuate white supremacy.

Unabashed white supremacism was the default for the United States for quite a long time, yes. It's not the default in 2018. Based on your description, it seems like you're collapsing "white supremacism" with "structural racism." These are not the same thing.

The general tendency to collapse ideas together and and apply the most extreme possible labels whatever results feels like it has crossed a threshold in the last couple of years (particularly since Trump's election) that has started to make it legitimately difficult to actually have a conversation about anything. More and more political language is now weaponized for the purposes of bashing ideological opponents over the head, rather than optimized for clear communication.

It's questionable whether 'universalists' understand why these laws were passed at all. Discrimination in America was historically targeted at non-whites and women. Had it been a social phenomenon that pretty much hit everybody at random, it would have been just as easy for black men and Muslim women to deal with as it has always been for white, Christian men -- in other words, not a problem at all and laws against it wouldn't ever have been created. Anti-discrimination laws were passed to address the adverse discriminatory conditions that non-favored minority groups and women faced in the workplace, and that they STILL face in many workplaces.

To ignore this when looking at the meaning and intent of the law can only arise from ill will or ignorance of history.

Obviously almost anyone would acknowledge that as a historical matter, we probably wouldn't have bothered passing these laws absent large-scale discrimination against women and racial minorities, because there simply would have been no very pressing problem. But the historical context in which the laws were passed is distinct from the reasoning that provides moral authorization for them.

The universalist (one sometimes also sees 'classical liberal' or 'enlightenment liberal') perspective is likely to focus on the fact that it's unjust to individuals to discriminate on the basis of immutable characteristics, which suggests any individual should be able to make use of these laws if they find themselves a victim of such discrimination. Maybe a white guy isn't very likely to find himself in such a position, but if he does, these laws do (and should) have his back as much as anyone's.

I would argue that a perspective in which this isn't permissible — in which a white guy who has been discriminated against on the basis of race/gender shouldn't make use of these laws — is rooted in a problematic assumption of race/gender collectivity.

Unabashed white supremacism has been the default for the United States since before it became an official country. We're talking about a country whose founding document includes the phrase "We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal", written by white people who regarded non-white people as fucking livestock. White supremacy has informed our laws and cultural norms for centuries. If you only consider people running around with hoods or swastikas "white supremacists", you're turning a blind eye to how white supremacy is embedded into the very foundations of our society. And by doing do, you are actively helping to perpetuate white supremacy.

How do you differentiate between the white supremacists with hoods and swastikas and burning crosses and embracing racist ideologies, and the 'white supremacists' who strive for multiculturalism, social justice and racial equality but "perpetuate white supremacy" by using different terminology than you?

You should not let people pretend that historically intractable problems are solved. Besides, the digression into terminology was not of C0rinthian's doing.

This is a pattern, the avoiding of the subject to quibble about a few words that don't really matter to a hill of beans.

I still don't get how his screed would be protected in the workplace. Company officers have been fired or forced to resign for similar views. They do not seem to be protected either. I don't think the state law allows a person to try and pass disputed research, counter factual theories, or to dispute mandated adherence to judicial orders (Google was under a settlement for discrimination).

No one has answered how he should have been treated if he went full bore racist or sexist and claimed those were political opinions. The state law can't supersede federal law on the issue and create hostile work environments for protected classes. The state law would seem to be ineffective in that scenario, and arguably, in the current facts as well.

No, that's still what white supremacist means. I'm not diluting the term, I'm applying it to people that really hold that view, including Trump and a large part of the Republican party. If you want to unpack statements like "immigrants should come from Norway", start a thread, it would be a big tangent here. For the purpose of this thread, I will treat unabashed white supremacism as a mainstream view.

So if we took the members of some random KKK chapter and replaced half of the Trump administration with them, you wouldn't expect to see any difference?

It's enough of a mess that I couldn't even tell you what to expect with the same people plus or minus Trump making a typo on Twitter, but if you put some KKK members in Trump's staff they'd look at what Trump is doing with eg immigration or voting suppression or law enforcement policy and say "keep up the good work", and the reason I think they'd say this inside the administration is because that's what they're saying outside the administration.

I don't understand why you think it's meaningful to contrast these things. The Damore memo was a document that made a variety of factual claims, some of which were being misrepresented. It was interesting to correct that misrepresentation and examine those claims.

That's a charitable interpretation of your participation since as I recall you actually had to have it pointed out to you the document contained policy proposals and he didn't bother to connect what he cited to the proposals. You also seemed quite keen on creating a haphazard amalgamation of what people were saying deeming that to be a misrepresentation.

This is a social media post booing or cheering based on the race/gender of candidates up for promotion. There doesn't seem to be anything to examine here.

Well, I've pointed out repeatedly what I think it means and I consider myself better positioned to know than you, maybe you should start there. I think it means the person thinks they're not doing enough to break down systemic barriers.

Unabashed white supremacism was the default for the United States for quite a long time, yes. It's not the default in 2018. Based on your description, it seems like you're collapsing "white supremacism" with "structural racism." These are not the same thing.

And I think you are wrongly assuming white supremacism stops when they take the hoods off. Also as a reminder, I didn't say it was the default, I said it was mainstream.

I meant if he kept trying to debate it and post it on the boards in Google. Repeat the same pattern of behavior, but with plain old, overt racism. It's a political belief. Why would the California law prevent operation of federal legal precedent about hostile work environments for federally protected classes?

If that's your reasoning process then there is an onus on you to ensure the counterfactual is actually representative. Failure to do this means you're making up "just so" stories from whole cloth.

I have no idea what this means.

It means you're creating an unverifiable narrative account. You're inventing a ZnU Cinematic Universe where your current blind spots are built in and expecting it to yield new information.

Perhaps a less controversial anecdote might help explore this point. I once went to a (very disappointing) lecture by a member of the Maths department titled “Why Atheism is Irrational”.

One of the counterfactuals in that used philosophical zombies - “Imagine that there are people who appear in every way to be conscious, but don't actually have the experience of consciousness”. Using this counterfactual in an argument for dualism is worthless, because the the counterfactual universe is founded on dualism.

If you're going to provide a counterfactual, you need to ensure that you haven't built your conclusion into the premises of the counterfactual. Unless you're aiming for proof-by-contradiction, I guess.